Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Comparing Compactifactions
Replies: 6   Last Post: Mar 20, 2013 10:30 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
David C. Ullrich

Posts: 21,553
Registered: 12/6/04
Re: Comparing Compactifactions
Posted: Mar 20, 2013 10:07 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:36:42 -0700, William Elliot <marsh@panix.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2013, David C. Ullrich wrote:
>>
>> >Let (f,X) and (y,Y) be compactifications of S.
>> >Assume h in C(Y,X) and f = hg.
>> >
>> >Thue h is a continuous surjection and when Y is Hausdorff
>> >a closed quotient map.
>> >
>> >k = h|g(S):g(S) -> f(S) is a continuous bijection.
>> >It it a homeomorphism? If so, what's a proof like?

>>
>> I doubt that it follows that k is a homeomorphism,
>> although I'm not going to try to give a counterexample.

>
>I'll have to check this out, but isn't
>k = fg^-1:g(S) -> f(S) a homeomorphism?


That seems clear. Don't know what I was thinking, sorry.

>
>

>> Assuming it doesn't follow, then k being a homeomorphism
>> "should" be part of the _definition_ of the partial
>> order on the class of compactifications that we're
>> struggling to define here.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.